How long could slavery last in the CSA?

[Snake Featherston]

That was my thought actually when I quoted this; given how willingly they used force on their own country, this doesn't bode well for the new republic if they still do it in peace time; that might be the kind of case that brings back the question about not whether they can keep their slaves down but whether they can even survive as a country more than a few years of increasing instability. They'd also already moved in Kentucky to try to force the hand of the minority southern democrat government there, and while they can pretend they were defending the interests of the confederacy to avoid a situation like the Martial law in Maryland, the governor of Kentucky clearly saw it as a violation of his state's neutrality.

Ah. And of course there's the much larger and probably also much more militarized USA north of the border, too, which would only radicalize what you and I speak of. The Confederacy was not the kind of society that could maintain a purely coercion-based system for very long.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I actually disagree with this. The CSA is a white, Christian, Anglophonic country. I can't see the leaders of the era of the high tide of Social Darwinism and Nordicism holding the CSA accountable to behavior the way they would be the Ottomans.

However, there was a fairly strong abolitionist element in most of Western Europe by this time, and that could have an effect. Industrialization could add to it; White labour having to compete black slaves might not go over well at all. You could even see an emerging idea that, while "savages" can keep slaves, "civilized" white people shouldn't. Hard to say anything for sure though; ATL social movements are rather tricky to figure out.

 

[Peabody-Martini]

I see that the south would be rent from within. In the decades following the civil war the CSA would have some possibly fatal problems.

The first would be their own constitution resulting in a very weak central government unable to do more than react to continuing crises.

The second would be from Europe. While the populations of France and England may not thrilled with agricultural products made by slave labor it would be an export from Germany that would sow chaos. Karl Marx would find a very receptive audience within a country that practiced slavery. I would be amazed if factions in the north, seeing an opportunity for a bit of payback, wouldn't take it, did not support a Marxist uprising in the CSA.

The third would the white working class population. They would have fought and died to uphold a way of life that very likely would not benefit them. The feelings of resentment would be huge. The large plantation owners would try to go back to life as it was before the war, only to find that the toothpaste is out of the tube.

The fourth would come in later. Sooner or later in an attempt to defuse the situation one of the states of the CSA would move to free the slaves within its borders. This would likely be seen as a threat to economies of surrounding states. Expect and new civil war within the CSA. This would prove the argument about states rights for the sham that it was and is.

The institution of slavery and the CSA would dissolve into violence and anarchy, neither one lasts into the twentieth century.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Well, on the subject of slavery and stability in the CSA, what's your thought on my ATL (see comment 28)?

To self criticize a little, one thing I've noticed is that it gave an impression of assumed the CSA would use a powerful government to preserve the institution of slavery. Though TBF to myself, this makes at least as much sense as a CSA government which ends slavery -- a common approach to A-CSA-H --by manumission or otherwise, seeing as this requires just as much government intervention.

But even if public sector slavery is more in line with Confederate founding principles, that doesn't mean to CSA will have the political maturity to face compromising their founding vision which includes a weak central government.

Then again, that doesn't mean they couldn't either...

 

[Snake Featherston]

However, there was a fairly strong abolitionist element in most of Western Europe by this time, and that could have an effect. Industrialization could add to it; White labour having to compete black slaves might not go over well at all. You could even see an emerging idea that, while "savages" can keep slaves, "civilized" white people shouldn't. Hard to say anything for sure though; ATL social movements are rather tricky to figure out.

By the same token even if the war ends in 1862 the South was willing to secede and fight what presumably will still be some bloody battles to secure it. Would the veterans' lobby yield to this with any ease?

Well, on the subject of slavery and stability in the CSA, what's your thought on my ATL (see comment 28)?

To self criticize a little, one thing I've noticed is that it gave an impression of assumed the CSA would use a powerful government to preserve the institution of slavery. Though TBF to myself, this makes at least as much sense as a CSA government which ends slavery -- a common approach to A-CSA-H --by manumission or otherwise, seeing as this requires just as much government intervention.

But even if public sector slavery is more in line with Confederate founding principles, that doesn't mean to CSA will have the political maturity to face compromising their founding vision which includes a weak central government.

Then again, that doesn't mean they couldn't either...

Even presuming an 1862 victory the South by that point would have adopted some form of conscription and also have seen precedents for suppressing revolts with a whiff of grapeshot. Assuming that poor whites leave the new Confederacy in large numbers, any and all opposition to the slave system could come to be seen as sedition, prompting a large peace-time army, which in turn prompts growth of government to secure national security, which creates backlashes against the stronger government taxes, which leads to still greater efforts for security.......

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Now the "public sector slavery solution" sounds downright likely --

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I'm noting, in retrospect, that I made an error calculating POTCSA terms, and it would have made more sense to have the options be:

before 1880
1880-1900
and so forth

Sorry about that

 

[Chengar Qordath]

By the same token even if the war ends in 1862 the South was willing to secede and fight what presumably will still be some bloody battles to secure it. Would the veterans' lobby yield to this with any ease?

I doubt abolition, even an extremely watered down version that largely preserves de facto slavery, would ever be an easy process in the CSA.

As for the veteran groups, it is entirely possible that, by the 1890's. most of them will believe the war had more to do with preserving "Southern Liberty" and repulsing the attacks of the "Yankee Invader" than it did with preserving slavery.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

As for the veteran groups, it is entirely possible that, by the 1890's. most of them will believe the war had more to do with preserving "Southern Liberty" and repulsing the attacks of the "Yankee Invader" than it did with preserving slavery.

I find myself doubting that -- it's important to remember just how integral slavery was to the lives of CSA supporters, inuding even a large portion of non-slaveholders.

 

[galveston bay]

Now the "public sector slavery solution" sounds downright likely --

appalling, but I absolutely agree. Note that Southern Prisons used chain gangs well into the 1960s for public works.

 

[CaliBoy1990]

As for me, I'd think real slavery would probably cease to exist by maybe 1880-1890 at most, but unfortunately, some greedy SOBs might be able to convince the CSAs gov't to come up with an alternative to old-style slavery, such as debt bondage or peonage which might last well into the 20th Century, possibly even until just after the middle of it.{for a good example of both, I suggest you read Decades of Darkness}

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I find myself doubting that -- it's important to remember just how integral slavery was to the lives of CSA supporters, inuding even a large portion of non-slaveholders.

The importance of slavery in 1860-1 is beyond dispute, but time does have a way of altering one's perceptions. For that matter, just look to Southern rhetoric over the course of the war; over time, it became less about slavery, and more about "Southern Liberty" and "Yankee Invader." Thirty years down the line the rhetorical shift is likely to have gone even further, especially as slavery becomes less and less acceptable to the outside world. Don't underestimate the human capacity for self-deception; thirty years after the war, people who at the time declared their intention to preserve the slave system might well be loudly insisting that what they were really fighting for state's rights and self-defense.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

As for me, I'd think real slavery would probably cease to exist by maybe 1880-1890 at most, but unfortunately, some greedy SOBs might be able to convince the CSAs gov't to come up with an alternative to old-style slavery, such as debt bondage or peonage which might last well into the 20th Century, possibly even until just after the middle of it.{for a good example of both, I suggest you read Decades of Darkness}

Would there be benefits to the CSA in transferring from slavery to peonage, beyond easing international relations?

The importance of slavery in 1860-1 is beyond dispute, but time does have a way of altering one's perceptions. For that matter, just look to Southern rhetoric over the course of the war; over time, it became less about slavery, and more about "Southern Liberty" and "Yankee Invader." Thirty years down the line the rhetorical shift is likely to have gone even further, especially as slavery becomes less and less acceptable to the outside world.

Bear in mind, TTL we're assuming CSA victory circa 1862.

 

[archaeogeek]

Would there be benefits to the CSA in transferring from slavery to peonage, beyond easing international relations?

A 20 years lease on life as things explode when the Mexican revolution begins. If they somehow make it to the 50s, cue the Black Panthers forming as a communist guerilla in the CSA instead of a marxist self-defence group in California

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

A 20 years lease on life as things explode when the Mexican revolution begins.

Will admit, I was not expecting that answer.

If they somehow make it to the 50s, cue the Black Panthers forming as a communist guerilla in the CSA instead of a marxist self-defence group in California

Remember, though, that a CSA victory is likely to have huge international butterflies, including the evolution of marxism and communism. I believe, for example, a previous poster noted that an independent south may prove a receptive audience toward (some of) Marx's critique of capitalism.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I doubt abolition, even an extremely watered down version that largely preserves de facto slavery, would ever be an easy process in the CSA.

As for the veteran groups, it is entirely possible that, by the 1890's. most of them will believe the war had more to do with preserving "Southern Liberty" and repulsing the attacks of the "Yankee Invader" than it did with preserving slavery.

I doubt it. If the Confederacy wins a short war with less economic dislocations and manages to defeat the much larger and more powerful Union that's going to lead to a bit of pro-slavery triumphalism. And given the Confederacy has plenty of precedents that could create a more militarized government.......

The importance of slavery in 1860-1 is beyond dispute, but time does have a way of altering one's perceptions. For that matter, just look to Southern rhetoric over the course of the war; over time, it became less about slavery, and more about "Southern Liberty" and "Yankee Invader." Thirty years down the line the rhetorical shift is likely to have gone even further, especially as slavery becomes less and less acceptable to the outside world. Don't underestimate the human capacity for self-deception; thirty years after the war, people who at the time declared their intention to preserve the slave system might well be loudly insisting that what they were really fighting for state's rights and self-defense.

Sure, but a great deal of that was due to Confederate military incompetence that led to such things as two Union victories in early 1862 opening a huge chunk of the South to Union military power. The shit was already starting to hit the fan insofar as revenue was concerned in 1862, but a CS victory at that point in the war is a rather different set of problems for the new Confederacy than one in 1863 or 1864.

One elephant in the room is what happens as a legacy of things like the Contraband policy.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I doubt it. If the Confederacy wins a short war with less economic dislocations and manages to defeat the much larger and more powerful Union that's going to lead to a bit of pro-slavery triumphalism. And given the Confederacy has plenty of precedents that could create a more militarized government.......

Sure, the early years of the post-war era in an early CSA victory TL are likely to glorify the slave system, but thirty years down the line it is entirely possible that this will have changed. Unless the South for North-Korea style isolationism, the international unpopularity of slavery is going to have significant effects on the Confederacy as time passes.

Sure, but a great deal of that was due to Confederate military incompetence that led to such things as two Union victories in early 1862 opening a huge chunk of the South to Union military power. The shit was already starting to hit the fan insofar as revenue was concerned in 1862, but a CS victory at that point in the war is a rather different set of problems for the new Confederacy than one in 1863 or 1864.

One elephant in the room is what happens as a legacy of things like the Contraband policy.

I'm pretty sure an 1862 TL victory would involve removing or mitigating Confederate disasters in the Western Theatre, which should help keep Contraband from being too problematic.

As I stated earlier, with an 1863-4 victory the Confederacy might well have no choice but to accept abolition as a fait accompli. Only most of Virginia and the Carolinas still have a reasonably functional slave system by 1864, and trying to restore slavery by force would almost certainly touch off a huge insurrection which the Union would gleefully support. An 1864 Confederacy would not be in a remotely fit state to fight that battle.

Of course, by 1864 a fair amount of the Confederate populace and leadership have decided that winning the war is more important than anything else, including the preservation of the slave system.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Sure, the early years of the post-war era in an early CSA victory TL are likely to glorify the slave system, but thirty years down the line it is entirely possible that this will have changed. Unless the South for North-Korea style isolationism, the international unpopularity of slavery is going to have significant effects on the Confederacy as time passes.

How much is realistic as regards a white Anglo Christian power in the middle of the high tide of the Social Darwinist era? People did object to this when the Ottomans did it but I'm not sure an independent Confederacy would be held to the same standard.

I'm pretty sure an 1862 TL victory would involve removing or mitigating Confederate disasters in the Western Theatre, which should help keep Contraband from being too problematic.

As I stated earlier, with an 1863-4 victory the Confederacy might well have no choice but to accept abolition as a fait accompli. Only most of Virginia and the Carolinas still have a reasonably functional slave system by 1864, and trying to restore slavery by force would almost certainly touch off a huge insurrection which the Union would gleefully support. An 1864 Confederacy would not be in a remotely fit state to fight that battle.

Of course, by 1864 a fair amount of the Confederate populace and leadership have decided that winning the war is more important than anything else, including the preservation of the slave system.

The POD, however, is they win in 1862 somehow. And by 1862 there's Fremont's decree and Benjamin Butler introducing that policy in the first place, which means the issue will still be there.

 

[Tyr]

Late 19th century generally.
Its just not economic and being an international pariah is never good for business.
Some of it might continue to exist officially in law into the mid 20th century but this would have to be very small scale and all-but hidden

 

[Snake Featherston]

Late 19th century generally.
Its just not economic and being an international pariah is never good for business.
Some of it might continue to exist officially in law into the mid 20th century but this would have to be very small scale and all-but hidden

Is there no way the CSA would simply be able to create a Todt Organization or a Gulag? How many people would object to that if the Confederacy did in fact do so?

Not many, I'd wager.